The road to nowhere
Alternative fuels like hydrogen may be a boon for the auto industry, but don't expect them to save the planet.

By Matthew Hirsch

THIRTY YEARS AGO , urban planner Terence Bendixson wrote, "Cars are a marvelous way of getting about, provided that you have one and the rest of the world does not."

There were roughly 371,000 registered vehicles in San Francisco when Bendixson made that statement; now there are nearly 100,000 more. And many fast-selling cars today – like the H2 Hummer and the Ford Expedition – are even bigger, heavier, and more devastating to the natural world than some of the moving monsters of the '70s.

Knowing this, it was perplexing to see Mayor Gavin Newsom in front of City Hall just before Earth Day promoting hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars as if driving one would benefit the environment. Newsom test-drove one of the cars, sipped the water it emits from the tailpipe, and pronounced San Francisco ready to become "the premier stop on California's Hydrogen Highway."

The Hydrogen Highway is a reference to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to install hydrogen-fueling stations every 20 miles along the state's major freeways by 2010. Provided that the price of hydrogen becomes competitive with gasoline – it now costs about $48 to fill up a tank – its widespread availability would make California the land of opportunity for fuel cell car dealers.

Why all the excitement about hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars, you ask? They're supposed to operate just like gas-guzzlers, but they don't spew toxic chemicals out of their tailpipes as most cars do, only hydrogen and oxygen.

There's no question that burning hydrogen fuel is less harmful than burning gasoline, but switching fuels doesn't change what we already know about cars in general: they're killing the planet. In fact, it's not just the car itself but the entire system of land use built around auto dependence that's the cause behind so much destruction.

Environmental journalist Katie Alvord noted the lifetime cost of automobiles in Divorce Your Car! Ending the Love Affair with the Automobile. Much of the pollution cars create, she told the Bay Guardian in a recent interview, comes from putting them together and junking them after they break down. So you could actually buy a Ford Thunderbird, wash it every week, but never let it leave the driveway (now that's an idea!), and still tons of waste and air pollution would accumulate over time.

"The whole transportation system needs an overhaul, not just the fuel we use," Alvord told us. "If we just switch over to alternative fuels in the same one-car, one-driver system, that's not going to solve the problem."

No such thing as a 'clean-air car'

It's no secret that automobiles begin creating waste long before they roll off the assembly line. German researchers at the Environment and Forecasting Institute in Heidelberg published a well-known report on the subject more than 10 years ago. Referenced by Alvord in Divorce Your Car, the Heidelberg study was one of the first to examine a car's full impact on the environment and human health.

The study, which was based on a medium-size car driven about 8,000 miles a year for 10 years, revealed staggering amounts of pollution for each of the five stages of a car's existence. The results didn't account for additional problems cars create, such as climate change, traffic injuries and deaths, urban sprawl, and noise.

The following represents an average car's lifetime toll on the environment:

• 26.5 tons of waste and 922 cubic meters of polluted air from extracting raw materials

• 12 liters of crude oil spilled into the world's oceans and 425 million cubic meters of polluted air from transporting raw materials

• 1.5 tons of waste and 74 million cubic meters of polluted air from producing the car

• 40.5 pounds of waste and 1,016 million cubic meters of polluted air from driving the car

• 102 million cubic meters of polluted air from disposing of the car

Despite the automobile's dismal track record, a lot of mainstream environmentalists have embraced fuel cell cars as a green way to drive. California Environmental Protection Agency head Terry Tamminen is a big supporter, and so is San Francisco Department of the Environment director Jared Blumenfeld.

"Ten years ago fuel cell vehicles seemed like science fiction," Blumenfeld wrote in an April 13 press release publicizing two vehicles the city leased from a local Honda dealership, "but the fact that we're able to drive these cars today on the streets of San Francisco makes me believe that eliminating harmful vehicle emissions is not only possible, but certain."

Blumenfeld later told us he was, in fact, referring to tailpipe emissions, not all of the pollution cars create. And yes, all cars generate some pollution over time, he agreed. But it's naive to think that everyone would give up their cars for alternative transportation, he maintained, so at least hydrogen fuel is better than gas. "I would like more people to take the bus to work, but they don't," he said.

To its credit, San Francisco has been seeking ways to reduce its automobile fleet. The city also has a forward-thinking "transit-first" policy that encourages the development of alternative modes of transportation, including a bicycle program and a multifaceted livable streets program, which contain great ideas that need to be developed.

The problem of automobile overkill didn't arise because we don't know how else to get around San Francisco. Like so many other American cities, transportation planners haven't made other transit options practical enough for most people.

A recent report from the San Francisco County Transit Authority pointed out a few reasons cars rule the city's streets in spite of the transit-first policy. The report, which was initiated by Sup. Jake McGoldrick, analyzed how engineers measure transportation performance so they can judge the adequacy of the city's roads and freeways.

The Transit Authority report recommended city planners change the way they evaluate the transportation system because now it heavily favors motor vehicle service. At present all projects in San Francisco, including bicycle and transit ones, must undergo a rigorous environmental review to see if they would reduce motor vehicle traffic – a provision that isn't required by state law.

"San Francisco needs more appropriate measures and standards for the transit, bicycle and pedestrian environments on city streets," the Transit Authority report concluded. The document offered several ways to reduce traffic in San Francisco, none of which, it should be noted, suggested promoting hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars.

After reading the report, we called the Department of Parking and Traffic to ask what's being done to get cars off the streets. The answer, as public affairs director Diana Hammons told it, was a difficult one.

"It's not really our job to reduce traffic or to get cars off the street. Our job is to facilitate the multiple modes of transportation in San Francisco," Hammons said. She then broke into a lengthy explanation of the department's mission – "encouraging the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the city" – which could in turn lead to less traffic. Or not.

Finally Hammons recommended we look at the bicycle and livable streets programs, but she insisted safety and reducing traffic congestion were the DPT's priorities, not reducing the number of cars. "There are a number of things you can do to reduce traffic congestion without getting cars off the street," Hammons said, "and reducing traffic congestion does not always make streets safe."

Take a hike ... or a bike, or a bus!

Dave Snyder, executive director of the nonprofit Transportation for a Livable City, told us the DPT's failure to explain how it's reducing traffic "shows you how backwards they are."

"In their single-minded focus on parking and traffic, they are going to kill mobility in San Francisco," said Snyder, who works with various public agencies to reduce auto dependence. People won't notice an improvement in their lives from switching to fuel cell cars, he added, and it won't bring any relief to the transportation system either.

As Bendixson warned 30 years ago, "No amount of tinkering with the technology of vehicles will lessen the oppressiveness of this army of steel." Instead, he proposed to make use of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit alternatives, the same alternatives Snyder believes will make San Francisco a more livable city.

Bike to Work Day (May 20) and World Carfree Day (Sept. 22) are two upcoming opportunities to practice these alternatives, and for those of you feeling particularly liberated from your automobile, there's the World Naked Bike Ride (June 12).

But don't be surprised if certain elected officials continue promoting hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars. Sometimes it pays to overlook the social and environmental problems, especially if you're collecting money from the industry.

For Schwarzenegger, the proposed Hydrogen Highway has already been lucrative. He has received more than $1.6 million from automobile companies, car dealerships, and energy suppliers, according to campaign contribution records we obtained from the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica.

Of that total, Toyota, General Motors, and Chevron-Texaco – all members of the public-private California Fuel Cell Partnership – gave $210,000, and the U.S. Automobile Association chipped in $50,000. And all of those contributions came just weeks before the companies gathered in Los Angeles for the annual National Hydrogen Association convention last month.

E-mail Matthew Hirsch